On Parliamentary Boycott

It is my Parliament and I open it if I want too!

by School of Vice

The decision taken by the Opposition CNRP to boycott the convening of the inaugural parliamentary session today 23^rd September is the right course of action to take under the circumstances, in my view. For far too long opposition forces had allowed themselves to fall into the CPP regime’s trap either unwittingly or consciously on the lure of the promise of power-sharing in a set up in which they would first take the bait which can be irresistible, then the trap door would slam shut and the opposition would convince themselves that at least inside of the snare there would be plenty of food baits to stay content with.

‘Honour’ is a word rarely used by men who are regarded as truly honourable; and so is the word ‘promise’, preferring instead to wait and allow others to judge them by the concrete symptoms of their actions and integrity. Certainly, on the contrary, those who know that their behaviour and deeds are guided by dishonour and deception would often be heard making impassioned pledges and talk of honour as if it is some form of barter item or commodity. During the national election campaign in 1993, Mr Hun Sen had also seen fit to pledge to “honourably” hand over power to the Opposition party if his CPP party were to be defeated in that election. The CPP did lose the election, yet Sen refused to “honourably” hand over the reign of power to the winner in that year. He even made references to other ruling parties elsewhere in the socialist bloc who similarly clung on to office despite the electoral verdict having been in the opposition party’s favour. That he could only find examples from these authoritarian states by which to aid his case and excuses only tell us something about the circle of political culture and mindset within which he experiences and moves as a political player and manipulator. So after the initial tense period of political negotiation in that year, Funcinpec had finally been bullied into a power sharing arrangement in which there would be now two prime ministers. Yet, our late King Sihanouk came out of one meeting with Sen declaring with characteristically sanguine air of rejoice and optimism that “from now on Cambodia will have peace and there will be no more war”. This was exactly what many wanted to hear, and precisely what Sihanouk convinced himself the country wanted to hear. But more importantly or worryingly he appeared not to have noticed his own idiosyncratic naivety and monumental lapse in political calculations that had under his past leadership allowed his enemies to dupe him.

When the Vietnamese entered Phnom Penh in 1979 one of their main mission objectives was to ‘rescue’ Sihanouk from the clutches of Pol Pot, instead the Chinese had ensured that for their own reasons the Vietnamese would miss that opportunity, knowing like the Vietnamese did how easily Sihanouk could open himself to their persuasive tactics and manipulations. Yet, the Vietnamese had clung on to the possibility that Sihanouk might still have a change of heart and return to his country to work with them, and this desire had been conveyed through radio broadcast from Phnom Penh throughout that first years of Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia. When the Vietnamese finally realised this failed to work, they began to change the focus of their propaganda and daily sought to discredit the former King by attacking his personal lifestyle and his ‘traitorous’ collaboration with Pol Pot and the Chinese instead. Despite all that, Sihanouk had once again managed to fall into the trap set for him by the Vietnamese in 1993 by means of agreeing to integrate Funcinpec military into the ‘national’ military set up which was dominated by the CPP. Without its own military muscle Funcinpec had little bargaining weight in its power sharing negotiations with Hun Sen and the CPP.   Sihanouk’s and Funcinpec’s years of armed struggle to free Cambodia from Vietnam’s hegemony had come to nothing.

This lesson should be avoided at all cost. The call for independent enquiry into electoral irregularities along with the substantial parliamentary ground achieved by the Opposition, even if or despite those credible allegations of cheating that marred the election process, have already put a powerful disapproving question mark over the ruling party. The convening of the inaugural session of the National Assembly without the participation of the Opposition could only make this parliament look half-baked and this government half-formed at best. Where else in the world of parliamentary political system can we find such a ridiculous, farcical precedent? Yet, in fact, this has been the norm since the violent coup in 1997 and the subsequent formation of a new parliament in 1998, because the opposition parties had been slow to get their act together and find a formulae that enabled them to gain a foothold in political power and influence that reflected the corresponding will and aspirations of the Cambodian people. The fact that the ruling party refuses to entertain the idea of an investigation into the electoral irregularities prior to the formation of a new government should tell us that it does not see fair play as being part of the equation, and without fair play the opposition can but sing along from the CPP hymns book and make a tyrannical government look legitimate and democratic, or even acceptable to the home population and the international community. So by boycotting this parliament the Opposition will have forfeited or sacrificed nothing of substance to itself; instead it now reaffirms its moral stance and determination in the eye of its vast number of supporters and this could only strengthen it as a popular democratic alternative and movement. I also feel that as long as the Opposition’s leadership act true to the will and hope of its supporters, it will always be supported financially by them, at home and overseas who have played such a crucial part in its hitherto struggle for social justice and national independence – two factors still have to find settlement in any actual sense.

Despite heavy financial backing from China the Hun Sen regime will eventually collapse without worldwide international support – both diplomatically and economically. This is the time to galvanise this support for the Opposition, but it is important that the street protests continue to make their presence felt nationally and beyond. What Khmer people the world over see and hear daily either on line or on their TV screens are what governments, journalists and researchers  also witness and can testify to. The recent reported gas attack on civilians in Syria by the ruling regime there has caused such an outrage among peoples of the world that some governments are preparing a military intervention even without prior UN resolution. This is because western governments are by and large sensitive to the currents of public opinion that put them in office in the first place. There are not that many authoritarian states in the modern world that are able to commit unaccountable crimes against their own populations without the outside world community’s witness and judgement. As any citizen of the US, Australia, France and Britain sees brutalities committed against minors, women and youths they invariably imagine these acts being committed against their own sons, daughters, sisters, mothers and loved ones, and would expect their government to do something about it even if it is their contribution through tax that ultimately would make the intervention possible! 

But it may not require such drastic measures to oust the CPP regime - perhaps; just economic sanctions alone might suffice. A government deprived of popular consent and democratic mandate may hope to cling on to power by devious means for some time, but it cannot last indefinitely. The worst thing to do that would facilitate this illegitimate attempt will be for the Opposition to let itself be lured into taking that bait as Funcinpec and Sihanouk had unforgivably and unwittingly done once or twice too many times before.